Mary Corbett felt "threatened" and "physically intimidated" by Lowe

[SaintRobbie]

Sounds like the old 'my enemy's enemies are my friends' scenario

 

Does a little.

[SaintRobbie]

Wes - thanks for posting that. There are many examples of this over the years. Lowe IS as suggested, either that or its been a rather well concocted conspiracy for many many years.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

FF may yet justify his comments. We have to give him the opportunity.

 

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

[Johnny Shearer]

Very few people on here are neutral, so if Duncan chooses to be anti Lowe that is

entirely his prerogative.

 

 

I'm completely neutral.

[alpine_saint]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

 

Its what we all want Dunc. Good post.

 

And I wonder why O_B doesnt like to get PMs....

[um pahars]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read Ponty's call for FF to "justify" his comments a few hours back.

 

Didn't want to post it until perhaps FF had turned up for the evening, but now he has, it's nice to see I'm in tune with what FF is thinking.

 

 

 

FF may yet justify his comments. We have to give him the opportunity.

 

That's very honourable of you.

 

But why has he got to justify his comments?

 

What are the forum rules on this, have all posts got to be justified?

 

Now of course, had you said FF may want to justify his comments, it might have come across somewhat diffferently, or are you really stating that he has to justify his comments?

[Delmary]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

A great post Duncan. The club will never move forward until those responsible for our demise leave our club for good.

[krissyboy31]

A great post Duncan. The club will never move forward until those responsible for our demise leave our club for good.

 

+1 Couldn't agree more.

[Ponty]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read Ponty's call for FF to "justify" his comments a few hours back.

 

Didn't want to post it until perhaps FF had turned up for the evening, but now he has, it's nice to see I'm in tune with what FF is thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

That's very honourable of you.

 

But why has he got to justify his comments?

 

What are the forum rules on this, have all posts got to be justified?

 

Now of course, had you said FF may want to justify his comments, it might have come across somewhat diffferently, or are you really stating that he has to justify his comments?

 

I'm pretty certain it'd make no difference whatsoever what I post at this juncture.

[um pahars]

I'm pretty certain it'd make no difference whatsoever what I post at this juncture.

 

But it would be of interest, and it might lay down some ground rules.

 

Are you saying that posts have to be justified?

 

Is it a legal or editorial/moderating requirement?

[Ponty]

All I was doing was electing not to close the thread until FF had replied. Whatever else you're inclined to infer from that is up to you.

 

As an aside, and for future reference, I would prefer that all and any allegations are justifiable and are backed up by some sort of evidence but I appreciate that cannot always be the case. If something cannot be backed up and is highly inflammatory, and/or liable to legal action, I'd prefer it wan't posted at all but that said, I'm not on some sort of censorship campaign.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read Ponty's call for FF to "justify" his comments a few hours back.

 

Go see a doctor. Mentalface.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

All I was doing was electing not to close the thread until FF had replied. Whatever else you're inclined to infer from that is up to you.

 

As an aside, and for future reference, I would prefer that all and any allegations are justifiable and are backed up by some sort of evidence but I appreciate that cannot always be the case. If something cannot be backed up and is highly inflammatory, and/or liable to legal action, I'd prefer it wan't posted at all but that said, I'm not on some sort of censorship campaign.

 

 

Ponty - appreciate you have been caught up in something here not entirely of your making but how else should I "back up with some sort evidence" what Mary told me other than Fos1 confirming it to be true. What else can I do? She told me, I reported it and there was a witness. At a loss to what more I can provide.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

 

Well said and totally candid.

[SaintRobbie]

I think Lowe will look very nice stuffed in Duncan's museum.

[Ponty]

Ponty - appreciate you have been caught up in something here not entirely of your making but how else should I "back up with some sort evidence" what Mary told me other than Fos1 confirming it to be true. What else can I do? She told me, I reported it and there was a witness. At a loss to what more I can provide.

Like I said FF, that was an aside to answer later questions on UP's post. I thought your post was alright.

[Wiltshire Saint]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read um pahars ask Ponty whether posts need to be justified a few hours back.

 

Um pahars and Saint Robbie both touched me.

 

I trust I will not be asked to justify this statement.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Like I said FF, that was an aside to answer later questions on UP's post. I thought your post was alright.

 

OK. Accepted.

I think your use of the word "justify" is where Steve was understandably coming from. Jonah started this thread in a similar vein and I didn't initially answer because I don't think anyone has to defend what they post unless it is "legally neccessary". People hold views and people spin - what people chose to believe at the end of the day is up to them.

 

Jonah was fishing (for whales), for what reason I do not know for sure, but I can guess.

[um pahars]

All I was doing was electing not to close the thread until FF had replied. Whatever else you're inclined to infer from that is up to you.

 

Lost me a bit as most threads aren't closed, they jusy come to their natural end.

 

Was just wondering if there was a new approach on here with Mods having to ask people to "justify" their posts, so thanks for clearing it up.

[um pahars]

Um pahars and Saint Robbie both touched me.

 

Not at the same time we didn't.

 

I've never met SaintRobbie (and I can justify that, I think).

[SaintRobbie]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read um pahars ask Ponty whether posts need to be justified a few hours back.

 

Um pahars and Saint Robbie both touched me.

 

I trust I will not be asked to justify this statement.

 

I would categorically like to deny this and shall be taking legal action against you for such a slur

[saintjay77]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

 

Fair play to you. That was probably more ballenced than I was expecting TBH. I have nothing against anyone on here but do get hacked off when it appears people jump on bandwagons and rearrange quotes and events just to fit what they think.

 

I think some of the original quotes by you on this subject appeared to put you into the catogory I have just mentioned. But your answer above puts that right IMO.

 

Glad I was wrong on you not being the historian any more. Not sure why im glad but its better to hear you are rather than hear ole rosey cheeks has run you out.

 

FWIW all this annonimous stuff gets a bit tiresome so im Jason Pace formally of Hedge End and its nice to meet you. Anyone that knows me wont admit it and I dont blame them but the whoe saintjay77/jas pace double identity thing is doing my head in.

[saintjay77]

All I was doing was electing not to close the thread until FF had replied. Whatever else you're inclined to infer from that is up to you.

 

As an aside, and for future reference, I would prefer that all and any allegations are justifiable and are backed up by some sort of evidence but I appreciate that cannot always be the case. If something cannot be backed up and is highly inflammatory, and/or liable to legal action, I'd prefer it wan't posted at all but that said, I'm not on some sort of censorship campaign.

 

foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track

 

not easy to be politically correct is it? lol

[Ponty]

Brilliant.

[saintjay77]

OK. Accepted.

I think your use of the word "justify" is where Steve was understandably coming from. Jonah started this thread in a similar vein and I didn't initially answer because I don't think anyone has to defend what they post unless it is "legally neccessary". People hold views and people spin - what people chose to believe at the end of the day is up to them.

 

Jonah was fishing (for whales), for what reason I do not know for sure, but I can guess.

 

he may have been looking for a fight or have had another reason but to be fair your original post said physically threatend. and that is quite a statement.

 

had lowe physically threatend a women then the repocussions would have been huge. It doesnt matter if it was Lowe or any man really, its just not the done thing and rightly most people would be steaming about it.

 

without clarifying that this whole debate started, did she say that or did she not? did she not mean to say it or did you not mean to? did you say that just to get a bit more bad feeling going against rupes or was it just what you thought she meant?

 

plenty of questions and none of them answered until your reply.

 

Now it looks like there was nothing sinister behind it and all the hype has been for nothing. but it gave us something other than admin to talk about for a day or so lol

[Nineteen Canteen]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

 

Good post and many things which I can agree with except if Lowe goes they all must go and I still think bringing private conversation that were not intended to be made public by one party is wrong. If the tables were turned Duncan and someone recounted a private conversation they held with you which reflected badly on yourself I'm assuming you would be angry and feel it's a punch below the belt.

 

Nothing wrong with fighting your corner but can I suggest we stick to the rules laid down by the Marquis of Queensbury.

 

Don't alienate the middle ground.

[Wes Tender]

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read um pahars ask Ponty whether posts need to be justified a few hours back.

 

Um pahars and Saint Robbie both touched me.

I trust I will not be asked to justify this statement.

 

Was this physically or mentally? I think that we should be told, as there is of course a lot of difference.

[Wes Tender]

Good post and many things which I can agree with except if Lowe goes they all must go

 

So, you agree with me that they should all go?

[Nineteen Canteen]

So, you agree with me that they should all go?

 

Absolutely, but until that is possible I think Lowe should stay. Time to flex that advertising muscle Wes and search for a CEO and magician who may be able to take this club forward with the blessing of the 3 wise men.

[Deano6]

foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track

 

not easy to be politically correct is it? lol

 

Don't be a tw*t.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Fair play to you. That was probably more ballenced than I was expecting TBH. I have nothing against anyone on here but do get hacked off when it appears people jump on bandwagons and rearrange quotes and events just to fit what they think.

 

I think some of the original quotes by you on this subject appeared to put you into the catogory I have just mentioned. But your answer above puts that right IMO.

 

Glad I was wrong on you not being the historian any more. Not sure why im glad but its better to hear you are rather than hear ole rosey cheeks has run you out.

 

FWIW all this annonimous stuff gets a bit tiresome so im Jason Pace formally of Hedge End and its nice to meet you. Anyone that knows me wont admit it and I dont blame them but the whoe saintjay77/jas pace double identity thing is doing my head in.

 

Good Morning Jason! Good to see another head above the parapet!

[Mole]

Does anyone know why Jonah stopped posting when the club was in an offer period?

 

It seems rather strange for a man who mends photo copiers to be prevented from posting during this time....

[saintjay77]

Don't be a tw*t.

 

Ponty knew I was taking the p1ss which is all was intended.

[Wes Tender]

Absolutely, but until that is possible I think Lowe should stay. Time to flex that advertising muscle Wes and search for a CEO and magician who may be able to take this club forward with the blessing of the 3 wise men.

 

So we're both agreed on where we ought to be be at the end, but just disagree with what happens on the road there. I think that Lowe and Wilde should step down now, in favour of Crouch, who will be the interim chairman until the changes can be made. My thinking on that is purely on grounds that more fans will return to matches under him, not that he is necessarily better qualified to run things. That is a separate debate. If they refuse to step down before the new board of independents is organised, then they ought to at least have Crouch join them in the interim.

 

The first step on that route then, is for Lowe and Wilde to publically announce that they would be willing to step aside from the board to be replaced by an independent board. The other major shareholders, or at least a majority of them, should agree with that plan.

 

Once that step has been taken, then the difficult bit is overcome. It is then a simple matter to advertise the posts on the board through the national press and undoubtedly there will also be free publicity to be had through the sports media too.

 

If you are in broad agreement with the principle of what I propose, are you prepared to join me in gaining support for the idea on here? And then if the support becomes widespread, there will visibly be backing from the fan base so that the board know that this is what most of us want.

 

I must say, that if we can gain momentum for this idea, it will pove that the idea that the club can only be run by the majority shareholding group is complete nonsense. It would be encouraging to know that the majority opinion was that it would be better all round that none of the shareholders had anything to do with the day to day running of the club and that their only influence would be their right to vote at the AGM or EGMs if a majority of them were not happy that the independent board were not running things well.

[Frank's cousin]

Duncan

 

Fair play on your response, even if I dont agree with you on this. I respect your belieif in fighting your corner will lead to your desired aims... but disagree on the methods. I really think we have come to a point where 'NOT all is fair in love and war'.

 

Some hot heads had issues with lowe for 12 years, some more measured have judged the mistakes made ofver teh last five years and drawn tehir own conclusions etc, but the rants, public spats and spin from all sides have got us ...where exactly? further up the creek, no paddle and in a sinking boat... with no arms to paddle through the mire even if we could face it.

 

I would suggest that its the inabilty of those involved to demand straight talking and open professional and mature debate whose very aim is CONSTRUCTIVE that have certainly contributed to the current situation - all parties - and my opinion is that maybe we as fans should be pushing for that rather than doing our own bit for the 'cause' - on either side.

 

I've been acused of everything form a luvvie to fence sitting - but this is because whatever fans do, whilst Lowe, wilde, crouch etc all hold their shares, whilst any of these parties is on the OUTSIDE they will be ****ing in - and holding up whatever the otehrs are doing and ensuring the divisions remain. These parties feed of these fan divisions in thier propoganda wars and the end result is the misery we see now. The moral arguments about democracy and all the things we would like to see are frankly irrelevent as all parties have shown they are NOT prepared to simply be silent on the outside - Its a simple matter of surely doing everything in the fans powers to get them to see SENSE. By partaking in the propoganda war, we merely encourage them.

 

I know i have been guilty of this to, (before UP pops up with another bout of accustaions of hypocracy, in his unique style) , yet despite being highly critical of Wildes tactics when he first arrived, was prepared to hear him out, eventually, naive for sure, but it was done in the right spirit.... Its that spirit whicvh I think the 'down and dirty' tactics undermines.

 

So my question would be: HOnestly, do you believe that even another boardroom suffle with Lowe once again on the oputside will see saints realise the dreams and aspirations that you and all fans have? Or do you think we would just see more of the same, with Lowe, playing the same role crouch now is, digging and jibing from the outside?

[Wes Tender]

Duncan

 

 

Some hot heads had issues with lowe for 12 years, some more measured have judged the mistakes made ofver teh last five years and drawn tehir own conclusions etc,

 

Well, I've made no secret of the fact that I have had series issues with his arrival here at the time of the reverse takeover and resent the implication that I might be a hothead for disparaging the immoral and unethical nature of that bit of business. Even within the past couple of weeks some information reached me that if true would have serious legal repercussions for those involved.

 

Instead of calling those like me who have had issues with Lowe for the dozen years, I think that we can justifiably claim that we had great prescience in believing that he was not the right person in conjunction with those other charlatans to be running the club. Our gut feelings have indeed proven to be true.

[norwaysaint]

foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track, foot in mouth, back track

 

not easy to be politically correct is it? lol

 

I dislike posts that just insult people, but what a complete ****.

[OldNick]

Ponty, with respect - I do not feel the need to "justify" my comments re Mary.

I passed on a simple fact that Mary told me she felt intimidated and threatened by Lowe.

 

Any more comment on that would have to come from Mary, not me. But as Fos 1 has confirmed that is what I was told and FWIW I believe that is the way she genuinely felt. She did not ask me to post this at all - I posted it off my own back without recourse to her or anyone else. The fact remains that is how she told me she felt.

 

Yes, as FC has pointed out, I have an agenda. I want SFC to be the greatest club in the world. OK - no chance, but I want to maintain the dream I have held since the age of 5. I certainly do not believe it will ever happen under the stewardship of Lowe who I believe not only to be a very unpleasant person but also someone incapable of delivering even a slight improvement in the fortunes of SFC. Because I believe that, I will march and campaign in an effort to persuade my fellow fans that his removal would be in the best interests of our club. We might never be a great club again but under Lowe nor will we be a united club. For that reason his presence will always be a hindrance.

 

So, I admit I will spin or as SoG describes it "play this forum like a well worn fiddle" but I will not lie to achieve what I think best for the Saints. What I offer is my own interpretation - fellow postees can make there own mind up. They know I have an agenda so they can take that for what it is worth but my views are honestly held and expoused in the interests (right or wrong) of our club.

 

I think also some who criticise me and my views should take into account that I post non anonymously, which can be hard when you then have to take flak from people who can do it without having to put their name to their vitriol. "Slag" me as much as you want but have the courage to put your name to your views. Nah - that won't happen will it?

 

I remain, I think, the club's historian for the time being. Rupert Lowe has not taken away that nor has he interefered in my role. For that he deserves credit. Maybe he does not want me to become more of a martyr or maybe he thinks I do contribute to the club in a worthwhile manner. I don't know, but thanks to NickH for some of his comments re museums etc. I actually think Lowe is more in tune with some of those aspirations than most others who have graced the SMS hotseat. Shame we could not build on that.

 

Finally, can I say I support no camp. I do not want Lowe or Wilde in the boardroom and I'm not too keen on Crouch either (although if I had to pick between the 3 I would go for the latter). I think all 3 are egotistical and therefore should have no place running our club. I also think Wiseman, LM and co should accept their day has come and gone forever. I am not prompted by anyone any more. A clean sweep would be ideal as long as someone else was waiting in the wings.

 

Once Bitterne called me a drama queen for posting, last week, that we are near the end as a club. I have tried to contact him via PM to offer to reveal my source but he no longer offers the PM facility. I have, however, told 2 people, I trust, (Weston Saint and Trousers) my source (not LC or MC) and I think they would both confirm the fact I am not being the "drama queen" OB likes to imply. I post on here to inform fellow Saints fans - no more no less.

 

But I hold my hands up once again - I admit I want Lowe out, I want Wilde out - in fact I want anyone out who has contributed to utter disintegration of my football club. And I will post my spin on FACTS I believe not on lies I make up.

 

Can't be any more honest than that. Cheers - Duncan

Duncan thankyou for clarifying that and a very good post that was more statesmanlike than biased.

I may point out that the whole thread came about IMO due to the fact the words 'physically threatened' were used.That was of course behaviour that none of us could accept. Im glad that whilst you have not said the word 'physically' was not used you have withdrwn it from this piece.I will take it that it was not said and perhaps put up unadvisidly without really thinking about how it could be taken.

Im glad you are still the clubs historian and still work promoting the history we are proud of.

I wish for the whole directors box to be changed, not 1 gone but all gone including the people who have overseen the clubs direction for 30 years, without exception unless a damned good reason is put forward why not.

[Foxstone]

Duncan thankyou for clarifying that and a very good post that was more statesmanlike than biased.

I may point out that the whole thread came about IMO due to the fact the words 'physically threatened' were used.That was of course behaviour that none of us could accept. Im glad that whilst you have not said the word 'physically' was not used you have withdrwn it from this piece.I will take it that it was not said and perhaps put up unadvisidly without really thinking about how it could be taken.

Im glad you are still the clubs historian and still work promoting the history we are proud of.

I wish for the whole directors box to be changed, not 1 gone but all gone including the people who have overseen the clubs direction for 30 years, without exception unless a damned good reason is put forward why not.[/QUOTE]

 

Wholly agree and there is not one reason I can think of that could commend any of them to staying.

 

To be absolutely clear on my view, Crouch in charge is no better or worse than Lowe - They are both inept and unable to constructively lead this club forward. Wilde (other than his shareholding) is an irrelevance and purely there IMO just to fulfil a fantasy of being a provincial football club mogul.

Whatever all 3 plus the other hangers on must go !

 

What bugs me is why on earth cannot one of our seemingly wealthy and influential supporters ( of which we appear to have a few), do something about it.

If they are supporters I'm sure our current position must be breaking their hearts too, so why not act??

 

Perhaps I am aiming this question towards Duncan or any others who might have a inside run on the thoughts of some of these people.

[saintjay77]

I dislike posts that just insult people, but what a complete ****.

 

Jesus have people had a sense of humour bypass this morning or what? lol

[jonah]

Thanks for replying Duncan, and I will assume your comments regarding anonymity were not aimed at me as you and others know who I am.

 

The first point I hoped to clear up, which you now have, is that Mary did not ask you to post those comments and you put her private comments on here by your own choice without her knowledge. Personally I don't agree with doing things like that, but no doubt others will think it's fine (and I'm sure they will make that clear on here within about 10 seconds).

 

However, the other point you have not answered is with regards to Mary feeling intimidated "sometimes physically", especially as fos1 said:

 

"I was with Duncan when Mary made these comments, I can confirm she said " she FELT threatened and intimidated by Rupert Lowe. No more no less !!

 

Having mentioned the "physically intimidated", you then said "I am not going to elaborate on why I do not have her permission to say anything further" - which obviously implied there were more details relating to this matter. Again, fos1 seemed to say this wasn't the case at all?

 

I'm glad you agree on sticking to facts rather than lies, this is why I feel it is important that serious allegations/insinuations like this are clear on what is fact, what is fiction, and what is exaggeration - and in this case I'm still none the wiser. The use of the word "physical" makes it all sound unpleasant as I'm sure you're aware.

 

In the meantime, in the spirit of a clean sweep ridding us of the lot of them I look forward to some of your tales of LM's and LC's indiscretions and less fine moments on a different thread ;-)

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thanks for replying Duncan, and I will assume your comments regarding anonymity were not aimed at me as you and others know who I am.

 

The first point I hoped to clear up, which you now have, is that Mary did not ask you to post those comments and you put her private comments on here by your own choice without her knowledge. Personally I don't agree with doing things like that, but no doubt others will think it's fine (and I'm sure they will make that clear on here within about 10 seconds).

 

However, the other point you have not answered is with regards to Mary feeling intimidated "sometimes physically", especially as fos1 said:

 

 

 

Having mentioned the "physically intimidated", you then said "I am not going to elaborate on why I do not have her permission to say anything further" - which obviously implied there were more details relating to this matter. Again, fos1 seemed to say this wasn't the case at all?

 

I'm glad you agree on sticking to facts rather than lies, this is why I feel it is important that serious allegations/insinuations like this are clear on what is fact, what is fiction, and what is exaggeration - and in this case I'm still none the wiser. The use of the word "physical" makes it all sound unpleasant as I'm sure you're aware.

 

In the meantime, in the spirit of a clean sweep ridding us of the lot of them I look forward to some of your tales of LM's and LC's indiscretions and less fine moments on a different thread ;-)

 

No Mark - the anonymous comments were not aimed at you.

 

Mary certainly did not ask me to post those comments but neither did she say don't repeat them. They came about as we left the restaurant and came because she said she felt nervous at the prospect of standing up at the AGM and speaking out against Rupert Lowe. I asked why. And that is when she made the comments which did include the 3 words quoted ie "physically" "intimidated" and "threatened". No more was said at that instance but a few weeks later I spoke to her on the phone and asked her to elaborate which she did. But she also then asked me not to divulge the elaboration if you like.

 

But I will say this if it helps.

 

RL did not actually physically threaten MC.

 

However his behaviour on at least one occassion SHE FOUND threatening and left her FEELING physically intimidated. (I think the words in capitals important).

 

Should I have used the info?

 

Well my "agenda" as you know, is to persuade fans that RL is not really fit to be the PLC Chairman of Southampton FC. I felt that story which had come from the horse's mouth (if Mary doesn't mind me using that expression) had a relevance to that agenda and would help it. To misquote Bern's expression - "let the fiddle playing begin".

 

Can I also please add, Mark - I know some on here are very anti Mary for reasons I just do not understand. Out of all the people involved in the running of Southampton FC over the last 10 years (and I have probably met most) I have found her to be the most open, the most honest, the most approachable and the most committed. She is the only one I would not have a problem with if she held some sort of position in the Boardroom (not that she aspires that way anymore).

 

St Richard accused her of living off her father's shares, but what is she meant to do - give them away? To my knowledge she has not taken one penny out of the club and she has no desire to have any influence other than being a fan. True she wants to see the back of Rupert and supports (I think) Leon but that is as far as it goes.

 

And finally if Leon ever becomes Chair again and starts to foul up there will be no bigger critic than me (indiscretions and all). I only want this club to do well and to flourish once more.

[charliemiller]

I think if you read what is said in a different light perhaps all this does is confirm the view held by many that Mary Corbett nice lady that she is and part of the clubs history should never ever sit on the board at the club.

 

A boardroom is a place where egos go head to head and as is well documented Lowe has one of the biggest Egos of them all , additionally he is more than capable of express a threat or a challenge in a way which leaves you questioning what he actually meant when deep inside you know exactly what was alluded to.

 

If Mary feels intimadated or threatened may I suggest that it is because of superior intellect and presence rather than direct threats. She wont be the first to feel like that (I am generalising by the way this is not specific to Lowe, many business leaders have an air of aggression about them and she wouldnt be the first to be overawed by the presence of a person.

 

I may be wrong but threatened in Marys eyes is different from your or mine . Maybe duncan is getting grief only because Mary didnt make her true feelings clearer.

[Frank's cousin]

 

Instead of calling those like me who have had issues with Lowe for the dozen years, I think that we can justifiably claim that we had great prescience in believing that he was not the right person in conjunction with those other charlatans to be running the club. Our gut feelings have indeed proven to be true.

 

Sure you they now we are in the sheite... but for a couple of late goals though we would have stayed in the prem... but for crappy penalties we may have been promoted - under BUrley who many disliked.... What I am saying is, whatever our analysis of the current situation, the pros and cons of any particular regime, we too often forget the role sport has in all this... the simple issue of how one missed penalty can not only make an individual a hero or villain, but the impact it can have over a long period of time on the whole club, financially and sporting.

 

I dont have any facts on the 'issues' abot the reverse takeover, but suggest that although in our eyes morally and ethically suspect, probably no different from what happens in most of such deals - they are afterall ONLY done so someone can get rich - they dont happen so someone can get poor! (which when you think about it is usually actually what happens when you get into the football business! ;-))

 

Was he the right person? depends on your definition I guess, and if talking to fans about the 'ideal' I agree he would probably be far from it, but thats is kinda irrelevent given that he DID come in and make blunders and allienate fans and give the perception of greed etc... but we did finally move and we did through much luck admittedly start to see more stabilty on the playing side just about, given the huge disparity in economies between the premiership clubs - so it was not all dark - but as in most sports, have a crap season and it can be a disaster - the bigger the gap grows between teh Prem and the CCC, for those clubs without a serious backer, tthat diaster is going to get greater for teh relgated sides....

 

PS - dont consider you one of the hot heads by the way

Edited 25 February, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[Frank's cousin]

Can I also please add, Mark - I know some on here are very anti Mary for reasons I just do not understand. Out of all the people involved in the running of Southampton FC over the last 10 years (and I have probably met most) I have found her to be the most open, the most honest, the most approachable and the most committed. She is the only one I would not have a problem with if she held some sort of position in the Boardroom (not that she aspires that way anymore).

 

 

 

Duncan, If I may come in here. I dont think fans per sae are anti Mary - I think most have heard enough form wise headsthat she is an honorable and decent person. I think what has been criticised is more to do with how she has aligned her supoort and there are quite a few who ahve issues with Crouch. In addition, I think her initial support of Wilde has been criticised because she went along with teh groundswell that he would be able to turn us around and bring in the 'investors' and the question was what did she do in due diligence terms to check him out?

 

This is naturally an important part of having a directorial role either executively or on a non exec basis - and therefore some have questioned her experience in these matters. I suspect this is perhaops down to her history and background making her see SFC perhaps through the more old fashioned ideals - strong morally and ethically, strong on community etc, but in reality given teh way the game has changed perhaps too idealistic and maybe naive about the 'football business' that it has become? It would not be too far fetched to see this as a major reason why she would never have got on with Lowe.

 

I think for many, myself included, She was probably perfectly placed to be the UNIFYING figure and that would ahve been fantastic, but perhaps the history of her and Lowe, and the perception of naiviety with respect to siding with Wilde then Crouch has made such a role impossible.

 

I think for those reasons she has been criticised, especially if she openly joins the frey by going public with her thoughts and opinions. I dont think there is anything more sinister than that.

[saintjay77]

Duncan, If I may come in here. I dont think fans per sae are anti Mary - I think most have heard enough form wise headsthat she is an honorable and decent person. I think what has been criticised is more to do with how she has aligned her supoort and there are quite a few who ahve issues with Crouch. In addition, I think her initial support of Wilde has been criticised because she went along with teh groundswell that he would be able to turn us around and bring in the 'investors' and the question was what did she do in due diligence terms to check him out?

 

This is naturally an important part of having a directorial role either executively or on a non exec basis - and therefore some have questioned her experience in these matters. I suspect this is perhaops down to her history and background making her see SFC perhaps through the more old fashioned ideals - strong morally and ethically, strong on community etc, but in reality given teh way the game has changed perhaps too idealistic and maybe naive about the 'football business' that it has become? It would not be too far fetched to see this as a major reason why she would never have got on with Lowe.

 

I think for many, myself included, She was probably perfectly placed to be the UNIFYING figure and that would ahve been fantastic, but perhaps the history of her and Lowe, and the perception of naiviety with respect to siding with Wilde then Crouch has made such a role impossible.

 

I think for those reasons she has been criticised, especially if she openly joins the frey by going public with her thoughts and opinions. I dont think there is anything more sinister than that.

 

 

Those who jumped into the anyone but Lowe camp last time will find it harder to get support this time even though most would actually want anyone but Lowe.

 

Think more people are a bit more jaded on who they would support as we have all been taken in before. I guess Mary is no different to the rest of us on that score.

[Nineteen Canteen]

So we're both agreed on where we ought to be be at the end, but just disagree with what happens on the road there. Correct I think that Lowe and Wilde should step down now, in favour of Crouch, who will be the interim chairman until the changes can be made Vehemently disagree and could not possibly support even temporarily another 6 months of fan-friendly rhetoric that glosses over the reality. My thinking on that is purely on grounds that more fans will return to matches under him, not that he is necessarily better qualified to run things. That is a separate debate.It is, but crowds dropped further under Crouch and although number have dropped under Lowe the decline has been less. IMO crowds are governed less by boardroom personalities and more be results. I don't agree with your theory on this point If they refuse to step down before the new board of independents is organised, then they ought to at least have Crouch join them in the interim.I think this makes more sense and given the egos involved is probably the only workable solution but how you define who does what is another matter. My guess is Wilde would need to stand down as Football Chairman appoint Crouch in that role and leave Lowe as PLC chairman.

 

The first step on that route then, is for Lowe and Wilde to publically announce that they would be willing to step aside from the board to be replaced by an independent board. The other major shareholders, or at least a majority of them, should agree with that plan. They could do that or they could keep this underwraps and give the interim solution a chance to work. I wouldn't dismiss the option of all 3 having a working position in some capacity if it could be proven during a trial period they could work together. If someone were to tell me that this is out of the question because of historical events and that can be easily evidenced then I agree with your approach.

 

Once that step has been taken, then the difficult bit is overcome. It is then a simple matter to advertise the posts on the board through the national press and undoubtedly there will also be free publicity to be had through the sports media too.Agreed. However, is there any mileage in pursing a structure where all 3 work together. My concern is their propensity to undermine eachother in the media and as soon as one has to make decision the other doesn't agree with you know what would happen at the moment. I thinking more with regard to the short term survival of the club and shoots of revival whilst avoiding an expensive recruitment process and salary.

 

If you are in broad agreement with the principle of what I propose, are you prepared to join me in gaining support for the idea on here? And then if the support becomes widespread, there will visibly be backing from the fan base so that the board know that this is what most of us want. Agreed, but your post has got me considering as much as I dislike Crouch and the way he conducts himself could it work if he was appointed chaiman of the football board and Wilde was given some other non-exec role perhaps with a casting vote in the event of Crouch and Lowe having a disagreement over a football decision that required funding. Its just an idea but otherwise I have been supportive of the idea of a new fully independent board.

 

I must say, that if we can gain momentum for this idea, it will pove that the idea that the club can only be run by the majority shareholding group is complete nonsense.Agreed, otherwise every FTSE 100 company in the land woudl be run by a fund manager. It would be encouraging to know that the majority opinion was that it would be better all round that none of the shareholders had anything to do with the day to day running of the club and that their only influence would be their right to vote at the AGM or EGMs if a majority of them were not happy that the independent board were not running things well.I agree but as a halfway house and in an effort to improve the clubs fortunes could we simply appoint Crouch as an interim to FC Chairman and then if in the last chance saloon they act like petulant children we push the independent route. What you say here though I agree is nirvana for the club whilst it remains a plc if it can be achieved.

 

Wes, I think we are broadly in a agreement and your outline plan above is very plausible and well written. I have added my comments above.

 

I do have one caveat and it concerns your response to Franks post below. You seem to place great store in the fact you did not support Lowe from the outset and the whole plc debate. The reasons I say you place great store in this as its not the first time I have read similar comments from yourself and to try to seek some misplaced pride or what could be interpretated as classic after timing will not be helpful as I'm sure there have been many things since that we have not agreed with, that have turned out ok and vice versa.

 

In any event I really don't think Frank was alluding to you as there are far more obvious examples with a one track 'hot head' agenda but without an iota of an idea what to do if their agenda paid off and were asked to formulate a change in direction as you have detailed above.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Wes, I think we are broadly in a agreement and your outline plan above is very plausible and well written. I have added my comments above.

 

I do have one caveat and it concerns your response to Franks post below. You seem to place great store in the fact you did not support Lowe from the outset and the whole plc debate. The reasons I say you place great store in this as its not the first time I have read similar comments from yourself and to try to seek some misplaced pride or what could be interpretated as classic after timing will not be helpful as I'm sure there have been many things since that we have not agreed with, that have turned out ok and vice versa.

 

In any event I really don't think Frank was alluding to you as there are far more obvious examples with a one track 'hot head' agenda but without an iota of an idea what to do if their agenda paid off and were asked to formulate a change in direction as you have detailed above.

 

A sensible and rational response. Basically all 3 in or all 3 out. I could live with that until we found an alternative strategy but I think the Boardroom would self-combust within 30 seconds.

[jonah]

A little bit clearer, Duncan, I guess it wasn't helped by fos1 (Jim?) having a different recollection of Mary's comments.

 

I know some on here are very anti Mary for reasons I just do not understand. Out of all the people involved in the running of Southampton FC over the last 10 years (and I have probably met most) I have found her to be the most open, the most honest, the most approachable and the most committed.

 

None of which are relevant to sitting on the board though unfortunately. The sort of qualities required for that would include being capable of questioning and changing the direction the CEO(s) and performing due dlligence on relevant matters - as FC commented, I think these are the areas that make fans shudder at the thought of her on the board.

 

St Richard accused her of living off her father's shares, but what is she meant to do - give them away?

 

The only problem I have with this claim is that she puts herself forward quite regularly to espouse her opinion when it suits her, and to also do nothing when it suits her - as far as I'm aware she is effectively the elected spokesman of Robert, Peter, Sarah and various children and cousins so she is by no means a passive pawn in the boardroom shenanigans and could easily maintain her unnotifiable interest in the club if she wanted to. She actively chooses to remain involved.

 

When she first publicly opposed Lowe she did so through the press - not the boardroom - and then proxied all their shares to Wilde to do her bidding for her. I think many will see this as real weakness (as with Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon). Then there was the abject failure to investigate any of Wilde's claims or any of the new board members stating they "were names we didn't know" - this is someone who became a concert party in a multi-million pound company with people she knew nothing about! Then having sat in silence through the subsequent shambles that ensued in 2007/2008 - by people she helped bring to power - she again only returned to the fore when Lowe returned. This time she gives her backing to fans marching on match days - I find that cringeworthy behaviour, major shareholders resorting to demonstrations to oppose a board?

 

Now most of these comments apply to other current and former board members - I'm just explaining why other fans might not see Mary in the same light you see her. I also think a large part of her "kudos" comes from some people propagating the myth that John Corbett gifted Jacksons Farm to the club. I'm not dismissing what he did for the club in the 1930s, I'm just saying Jacksons Farm has been misrepresented for years in respect of the Corbetts.

 

To my knowledge she has not taken one penny out of the club and she has no desire to have any influence other than being a fan.

 

As she only briefly served on the SFC board - I'm not aware of any other work she previously did for the club, happy to hear about it - she would have struggled to take money out in the same way as certain other people (no names mentioned eh!). For balance though, don't forget that she has received £189,000 in dividends from her shares - as far as I'm aware, like all the others whose old Saints shares were converted at takeover, she has never chosen to decline those dividends and leave the money in the club either... neither did she contribute to the placing in the early 80s or the stadium Rights Issue in 1999 - I don't think she even took up her own allocation as far as I know. So not quite the Saints philanthropist some would paint her to be.

[Frank's cousin]

A sensible and rational response. Basically all 3 in or all 3 out. I could live with that until we found an alternative strategy but I think the Boardroom would self-combust within 30 seconds.

 

And that is the sadest part of our mess - if we had all thee parties working constructively together I DO NOT BELIEVE OUR SITUATION WOULD BE AS DIRE AS IT IS NOW - there would ahve been too much positive momentum and drive coupled with financial prudence to see us so in teh crap - we might be skint, might even be using more kids, but the atmosphers and collective spirit amongst teh club and fans would have us all with a 'we are skint, we are not very good maybe right now, but we dont give a toss what you think because we are saints and we can do this together.' kinda spirit - seriously if this lot got on, each knew waht compromise meant and let each get on with what they did best based on tehir collective experience i think we would be seen as the surprise package of the year... comfortably mid table with the 'team most likely tag' already attached for next season - can but dream....